Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[dogsgod]

Now I've been trying to find out who Jame's parents were and can some one help me because it appears, at best, this James is a cousin. Now I'm aware Semitic languages may not have a word for cousin but does the gospels show Jame's mother (Mary) not to be the Mary (the mother of Jesus)....

Your thoughts......?

This might help.
Sweet Brother of God

 

[Oberon]

This might help.
Sweet Brother of God

Yes, I like this line: " But partisans of the Christ Myth theory find James something of an inconvenience, too, since his fraternal connection would certainly seem to imply a flesh-and-blood historical Jesus rather than the misty Jesus of legend and dogma only later turned into pseudohistorical figure."

And when Price gives his little bit on comparing "brothers of the lord" to the brother metaphor, he fails to mention that this does not explain Josephus' reference, nor does he explain why the standard greek syntactical formula for kin relation is used with James and no one else in Paul.

 

[dogsgod]

"Indeed, the historical James confronts us with much the same enigma as the historical Jesus." R M Price

Indeed.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The only people (as far as I know) who suppose that James was Jesus' cousin are the catholics, who believe in Mary's perpetual virginity. However, this is a matter of dogma and not of history, and the catholic priest and scholar J. P. Meier notes that there is no reason (from a historical point of view) to think that James was anything other than a literal brother, which is what adelphos means. James' mother was Mary, and his father was probably Joseph, just like Jesus.

I'm still tracking this one but that word is more broad than just the brief definition you give. Both Thayer and Stron'g Greek Lexicon side with and against you on the translation. I'm not saying this James wasn't necessarily the (blood) brother of Yeshua but it does raise an eyebrow on genealogy.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This might help.
Sweet Brother of God

Yes, where would these brothers have come from if they were the sons of Mary (the mother of Jesus)?

Could they not be the sons of a different Mary?

 

[dogsgod]

Yes, where would these brothers have come from if they were the sons of Mary (the mother of Jesus)?


Could they not be the sons of a different Mary?

Perhaps Mary's sister Mary

In the latter case, they were the children of the elderly widower Joseph by his previous marriage. In the former case, they were the children of Mary's sister Mary(!) and her husband Clopas or Cleophas. This latter understanding seems already to have gained a foothold in the New Testament in Mark 15:40 and 16:1 and John 19:25. "James of Alphaeus" (Mark 3:18) represents this tradition, since Alphaeus and Cleophas appear to be but variant versions of the same name, both meaning "substitute." James, the son of Mary and Cleophas is James of Alphaeus is James the Just, brother of the Lord. Likewise, James bar-Zebedee, along with John, is traditionally held to be the cousin of Jesus. All such cousin ascriptions are attempts to distance Jesus from fleshly siblings and safeguard the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Oberon]

I'm still tracking this one but that word is more broad than just the brief definition you give. Both Thayer and Stron'g Greek Lexicon side with and against you on the translation. I'm not saying this James wasn't necessarily the (blood) brother of Yeshua but it does raise an eyebrow on genealogy.

First, Thayer is outdated and strong isn't a lexicon it is a concordance. There are several better lexicons for greek. The standard greek lexicon is Liddell and Scott: adelphoi are properly sons of the same mother.

However, it also lists near-kinsman as a possibility.

The point is not so much in the semantics of the word itself. It is well known that Paul and other christians employed the word adelphoi metaphorically to indicate close bonds.

You cannot take the word out of the greek construction in which it is used. In Paul and in Josephus, this construction is quite clear: it is a typical greek syntactic formula used to identify someone by kin. Now, is it possible that James is a half-brother or cousin? Well, yes, that is possible, but it is unlikely. The standard use of adelphos is an actual brother, and their are very few uses of this word to indicate a different type of kinship.

 

[dogsgod]

It is not unlikely that "brother(s) of the Lord" came later to be historicized, misunderstood in literal fashion in order to satisfy the same biographical curiosity that eventually filled the apocryphal Infancy Gospels with details of the childhood and home life of Jesus


How could this happen if the Greek is so emphatically clear that the brother of the Lord can only mean blood sibling?

 

[Oberon]

How could this happen

It didn't happen. It is why Price is alone among all NT, Jewish, and Biblical scholars here. It particularly makes no sense in Josephus.

 

[dogsgod]

It didn't happen. It is why Price is alone among all NT, Jewish, and Biblical scholars here. It particularly makes no sense in Josephus.

So when Paul states brother of the Lord it can only be taken to mean literally a blood sibling?

 

[Oberon]

So when Paul states brother of the Lord it can only be taken to mean literally a blood sibling?

Yes, but this is even more specific than "brother of." The formula is X, the Y of Z (James, the brother of the Lord, Jesus, the son of Damneus, James, the brother of Jesus, etc). It is a standard greek formula to identify on the basis of kin. As Price notes your link, this is pretty devastating to the "Jesus is pure myth" crowd. So he explains it away by your vague quote below, for which he has no evidence.

1. He doesn't explain why "brothers of the lord" is only used for a small group of people, and doesn't include the apostles anyone other than James, Jude, etc.
2. He doesn't explain why Josephus, who wasn't a christian, would identify James as Jesus' brother.
3. He doesn't explain why the formula for identification by kin is used.

Instead, he simply says It is not unlikely that "brother(s) of the Lord" came later to be historicized, misunderstood in literal fashion in order to satisfy the same biographical curiosity that eventually filled the apocryphal Infancy Gospels with details of the childhood and home life of Jesus

and provides no evidence for this.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm not interested in the whys or wherefores or any other issues involved. I'm trying to get to the meaning of the specific words of this particular sentence. So, the answer is yes, the only way the brother of the Lord can be understood is to mean literally a blood sibling? All the other many dozens of references to brother, brothers, or brethren can have a broader meaning but not this one reference by Paul? It's completely distinct from the other uses of the word?

 

[dogsgod]

What if Lord is to mean a heavenly Christ that will appear on the clouds? If the Lord is a heavenly being then couldn't James be the brother of this heavenly being? Metaphorically or spiritually speaking? And let's say only a man in this case of high standing such as a leader of a brotherhood would be referred to in this way as a title, or is this not possible due entirely to the Greek involved? It could be accepted in English, but would any English translation or understanding be entirely wrong?

 

[Oberon]

I'm not interested in the whys or wherefores or any other issues involved. I'm trying to get to the meaning of the specific words of this particular sentence. So, the answer is yes, the only way the brother of the Lord can be understood is to mean literally a blood sibling? All the other many dozens of references to brother, brothers, or brethren can have a broader meaning but not this one reference by Paul? It's completely distinct from the other uses of the word?

Yes, brother of the Lord means kin.

What if Lord is to mean a heavenly Christ that will appear on the clouds? If the Lord is a heavenly being then couldn't James be the brother of this heavenly being?

No. How would he a brother?

Metaphorically or spiritually speaking?

It can't be a metaphor, because that defeats the formula of identification by kin.


See all the hoops one has to jump through in order to get around the rather simple fact that a preacher/teacher/prophet/wonder-worker lived in first century palestine, had followers, died, and had a brother named James?

 

[dogsgod]

What is it about the Greek that prohibits this? I ask because brother of the Lord makes perfect sense in English to be taken either metaphorically or literally, as a title or otherwise, there's not a problem, but the Greek appears to prohibit the use of metaphors, at least according to you. As an example, let's say the situation was reversed and Paul spoke and wrote in English and used the term metaphorically when calling James a brother of the Lord. Would this present serious problems translating this into Greek for the translator and the Greek reader?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What is it about the Greek that prohibits this? I ask because brother of the Lord makes perfect sense in English to be taken either metaphorically or literally, as a title or otherwise, there's not a problem, but the Greek appears to prohibit the use of metaphors, at least according to you. As an example, let's say the situation was reversed and Paul spoke and wrote in English and used the term metaphorically when calling James a brother of the Lord. Would this present serious problems translating this into Greek for the translator and the Greek reader?

I can't say for a certainty that's what Paul meant or didn't mean and the passage in Josephus 20.9.1, for me, is suspect but as far as your suggesting of metaphor...The (Liddell-Scott) Greek Lexicon does allow for it to be regarded as a metaphor.

 

[Oberon]

What is it about the Greek that prohibits this? I ask because brother of the Lord makes perfect sense in English to be taken either metaphorically or literally, as a title or otherwise, there's not a problem, but the Greek appears to prohibit the use of metaphors, at least according to you.

1)First and foremost, it isn't just "brother of the lord." It is James, the brother of the lord. This is important.

And to answer your question, the reason the greek makes it impossible to be a metaphor is because this is a formula to identify a person by way of kin. People didn't have last names. Additionally, too many people had the same name. So they were identified by fathers, brothers, husbands, place of origin, or nick names. The way to identify by kin is X the Y of Z. This is never used as a metaphor, which would defeat the purpose.

2) We see Paul use brother as a metaphor all the time. We see this elsewhere in christian and in greek literature. Using the vocative of adelphos or simply calling people adelphos is used metaphorically. Additionally, Paul frequently used the expression adelphoi en to kyrio/brothers in the lord as a metaphor. We never see "brother of X" let alone "Y the brother of X" as a metaphor.

Would this present serious problems translating this into Greek for the translator and the Greek reader?

Yes, in classical greek. Because this would be identifying him by his kin, and the metaphor would be lost.

 

[Oberon]

I can't say for a certainty that's what Paul meant or didn't mean and the passage in Josephus 20.9.1, for me, is suspect but as far as your suggesting of metaphor...The (Liddell-Scott) Greek Lexicon does allow for it to be regarded as a metaphor.

Again, as the semantics of the word aren't important here. It is the construction.

Let me use an example from english. The word "have" can mean possess, or it can be used as an auxiliary to form the perfect tense (e.g. I have climbed). A dictionary would not be sufficient to give us the meaning of an english sentence with "have."

If the sentence was "I have a dog" then the possessive sense is clear. If it is "I have gone" then it is clearly an auxiliary.

In other words, the construction is what is important to determine meaning.

In the relevant passage, the construction prohibits the metaphor.

 

[dogsgod]

I can't say for a certainty that's what Paul meant or didn't mean and the passage in Josephus 20.9.1, for me, is suspect but as far as your suggesting of metaphor...The (Liddell-Scott) Greek Lexicon does allow for it to be regarded as a metaphor.

Thanks for the info. I can't say for certain what Paul meant either and I'm hesitant to rule out the possibilities. Josephus 20.9.1 is suspect for me as well on a number of levels.

 

[dogsgod]

1)First and foremost, it isn't just "brother of the lord." It is James, the brother of the lord. This is important.

It's not important in the example I gave. In English it's all the same. James, brother of the Lord can be taken to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, literally, spiritually, metaphorically, etc. Again, what is unique to the Greek?

And to answer your question, the reason the greek makes it impossible to be a metaphor is because this is a formula to identify a person by way of kin. People didn't have last names. Additionally, too many people had the same name. So they were identified by fathers, brothers, husbands, place of origin, or nick names. The way to identify by kin is X the Y of Z. This is never used as a metaphor, which would defeat the purpose.

All this pertains to the English as well, no explanation regarding old identifiers is necessary, that is all well understood, and whether or not it was ever used in English metaphorically, it would not prevent someone from being the first, and it wouldn't defeat any purpose either, especially in this case where the term could be used as a title in order to identify this particular James by his being the leader of a brotherhood.

2) We see Paul use brother as a metaphor all the time. We see this elsewhere in christian and in greek literature. Using the vocative of adelphos or simply calling people adelphos is used metaphorically. Additionally, Paul frequently used the expression adelphoi en to kyrio/brothers in the lord as a metaphor. We never see "brother of X" let alone "Y the brother of X" as a metaphor.

Yes, in classical greek. Because this would be identifying him by his kin, and the metaphor would be lost.

Could it not be a title to identify him as the leader of a brotherhood?

I have never come across this problem before, can you provide an online reference?